Howcomes we are trailing so far behind?

Speeds are lackluster in the UK. Why can't we enjoy speeds at the cost many
other countries are getting including the yanks and the candians?

Ok, 5mbps at something like 40USD maybe indeed difficult for BT, but a home
2000 service for under £40 a month would be more than welcome. 500kbps is
starting to feel real slow....

Dan

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 02:47:06 +0100, "Dan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Ok, 5mbps at something like 40USD maybe indeed difficult for BT, but a home
>2000 service for under £40 a month would be more than welcome. 500kbps is
>starting to feel real slow....

so why haven't you gone to 1M or indeed 2M. These services are
available. Perhaps this answers your question - we aren't getting
faster services because we aren't buying them ? or we aren't prepared
to pay enough ?

The focus here is on increasing covereage of the population and on
maximising takeup where available - hence the cheapie slower services
to get people to sign on.

USA and Canada have strong cable internet provision and DSL competing,
we have localised cable services irrelevant to 50% of the population.
Less competition = less innovation in service and higher prices.

Phil

"Phil Thompson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> The USA and Canada have strong cable internet provision

Isn't it disastrous for the uk that almost no new fibre is going into
the ground? The cable franchises were formulated when fiber was for
tv. What is the franchise situation now, and what are the government
doing to promote fiber internet rollout?

--

Mark W. Lewis, Broadband for Long Ashton & Failand

www.failand.org.uk

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:32:54 +0100, "Mark Lewis"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> What is the franchise situation now, and what are the government
>doing to promote fiber internet rollout?

don't know, there are large areas with franchises but no service
http://www.broadbandmap.co.uk/cablefran.htm

I guess the government would say it has provided a competitive
environment to stimulate the internet industry and its up to the
industry to invest in fibre if they believe it to be economic.

Probably better than taxing us to the nines to blow it all on some
public sector provision fiasco

Phil

if you look at other countries, there are generally three "wars" between the
providers.

First comes the price war. Once the spoils are won and lost, second comes
the bandwidth war. After that is fought, along comes the service war.
The uk is still on the first war (price). Once this is won and lost, the
bandwidth war will begin if conditions are right.

why are we so far behind? Well for so long, all any isp could buy was
IPStream. You can't have a war between providers if they all have to buy the
same, bland product.
Since some of the datastream players arrived, that has shuck things up a bit
and the price war has started - with various services and offerings at the
low end.

The bandwidth war might start soon, but i dont think will really cut in
until providers have the choice of LLU. IPStream and datastream are both to
costly to start a bandwidth war on.

so in short, because the wholesale market has been flat, flawed and bland
for so long - that is why we are in the backwaters compared to other
countries.

"Dan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4088759a$0$25239$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Speeds are lackluster in the UK. Why can't we enjoy speeds at the cost
many
> other countries are getting including the yanks and the candians?
>
> Ok, 5mbps at something like 40USD maybe indeed difficult for BT, but a
home
> 2000 service for under £40 a month would be more than welcome. 500kbps is
> starting to feel real slow....
>
> Dan
>
>

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 02:47:06 +0100, Dan wrote:

> Speeds are lackluster in the UK. Why can't we enjoy speeds at the cost many
> other countries are getting including the yanks and the candians?
>
> Ok, 5mbps at something like 40USD maybe indeed difficult for BT, but a home
> 2000 service for under £40 a month would be more than welcome. 500kbps is
> starting to feel real slow....
>

The 'broadband heaven' that is the US is somewhat of a myth. Certainly in
the cities, especially where there is competition between cable and DSL
providers, you will find plenty of low cost and high bandwidth services.
Where there is only a single provider, expect to pay through the nose for
a low bandwidth and quite often unreliable connection. As for coverage,
the UK has long overtaken the US.

K

"Mark Lewis" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Isn't it disastrous for the uk that almost no new fibre is going into
> the ground?

Do we need more fibre in the ground? A few years ago every wannabe
teleco was laying fibre like there was no tomorrow, then the teleco
marked slumped and AFAIK much of the capacity remains unused.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:06:06 +0100, Phil Thompson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Probably better than taxing us to the nines to blow it all on some
>public sector provision fiasco

Wouldnt it have been better if BT enabled all exchanges, rather than
having a plan based on 'demand', where the people who want bb suffer
because others in the community do not?

On 24/4/04 8:25 pm, in article (E-Mail Removed),
"Robespierre" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:06:06 +0100, Phil Thompson
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Probably better than taxing us to the nines to blow it all on some
>> public sector provision fiasco
>
> Wouldnt it have been better if BT enabled all exchanges, rather than
> having a plan based on 'demand', where the people who want bb suffer
> because others in the community do not?
>
And where do they get the billions of pounds to do that ?

Given that most exchanges that are very late or unviable don't have suitable
connectivity necessitating a huge fibre dig programme.

So, no, it wouldn't have been better, for the majority of the UK population.

You may not have noticed but BT has huge debts so its not exactly in a
position to borrow more - and neither is any other telecoms service provider
- and that won't change unless the majority pay more to subsidise the
minority.

I vote no way Jose !

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:25:03 +0100, Robespierre <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Wouldnt it have been better if BT enabled all exchanges, rather than
>having a plan based on 'demand', where the people who want bb suffer
>because others in the community do not?

they could have started with Aberdeen, but as I'm on Wansford exchange
this plan has little appeal.

They probably will enable all exchanges, only 600 or so don't have
triggers and some of them are being looked at again.

Faced with the biggest capital expenditure programme they have ever
done, the current "decibel management" strategy is as good as any
other at phasing the spend.

Phil